EDIT 1: For ease of viewing I tossed the comparison up on imgur: http://imgur.com/kBHJ0eq
EDIT 2: Squinting, it looks like they still have the 2-7-2014 date running in the gap between the 2nd & 3rd panel, but it's copyright is clearly from 1990-something. So, it's clearly intentional, I now wonder if it is Yahoo or S.A. himself providing the alternate.
I can't imagine Scott Adams being OK with this.
[1]: http://imgur.com/kBHJ0eq (thanks to another commenter for the image)
Imagine it was about abortion or gun control.
Furthermore, the date on the comic was apparently edited to hide what had been done. If you don't want to publish something because it's contentious, then IMO have the balls to state as much and simply don't publish anything - don't pretend the comic doesn't exist.
Censoring pornography doesn't infringe anyone's human rights.
1. Define human rights
2. Provide a methodology by which they can be objectively known.
Is a right to be left alone to one's culture a human right? Is a right not to be deprived by outside powers of one's native language a human right? And who gets to set the limits on the outer limits of such a right? (i.e. is the right to advocate the position that genocide of, say, black folk, is desirable a human right? What about pornography?).
My own sense is that usually these have no epistemology behind them and are based solely on projecting one's a priori assumptions onto the world.
Scott Adams' mild political satire is understandably censored because it is comparable in offensiveness to porn?!
By the way, Google doesn't censor porn. They categorises it. If they were either dropping all porn or replacing all porn images by pictures of little ponies, that would be censorship.